• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

New Sony patent: "Spoofing CPUID For Backwards Compatibility" (filed by Mark Cerny)

reksveks

Member
How the fuck can you possibly get a patent on something like that? The idea of faking IDs to match older hardware is something so basic and long-used that if the patent system wasn't utterly fucked it would be instantly rejected.
I have a feeling that Sony just patents overzealously even for stuff with prior art. The issue with the system is that the real test of patents comes down to law suits or private and commercial agreement between companies.
 

Topher

Gold Member
How the fuck can you possibly get a patent on something like that? The idea of faking IDs to match older hardware is something so basic and long-used that if the patent system wasn't utterly fucked it would be instantly rejected.

If it does the same thing but in a different way then why not? You can't patent the wheel, for example, but you can patent a new and improved radial tire. The concept is patented, it is the details of the invention that is important.
 
Last edited:

Trimesh

Banned
I have a feeling that Sony just patents overzealously even for stuff with prior art. The issue with the system is that the real test of patents comes down to law suits or private and commercial agreement between companies.

Yeah, the problem is that trying to get a patent invalidated post facto is complex and expensive - even if it's complete shit that should obviously never have been issued. I sometimes get involved in this stuff and when you see some of the crap the USPTO have issued patents for you end up nearly giving yourself concussion from facepalming so hard.
 

reksveks

Member
Yeah, the problem is that trying to get a patent invalidated post facto is complex and expensive - even if it's complete shit that should obviously never have been issued. I sometimes get involved in this stuff and when you see some of the crap the USPTO have issued patents for you end up nearly giving yourself concussion from facepalming so hard.
Yeah for sure, it benefits patent trolls and big companies whom can afford this tactic.
 

kingfey

Banned
Its too bad because I have quite a bit of PS3 games on my account, as well as PS1 games and some PS2. On Xbox its rather cool that you can play Dead Space 2, Sonic Generations and all in improved form. They look stellar.
Playstation have more library than xbox, yet they cant seem to utilize that advantage. That is golden goose for them. building emulation machine on the ps5 would have benefited them alot.
 

MrTentakel

Member
ps3 processor cell was some kind of wizard. That is why the ps4 couldnt emulate the ps3 games.
Pc can do the emulator with internet nerds, so I dont see why Sony cant hire experts to fix the issue.
The issue is not to run some games at some quality but to run many games at a quality good enough you can market and sell the product without beeing sued.
 

squarealex

Member
Funny, when you know PS4 is an APU

rdPrfT5.png

J2amcYm.png
 
Last edited:

Genx3

Member
Given sonys previous statement about BC, this seems more like cockblocking Microsoft rather than focusing on BC.
It would be too late for that.

You can't just patent someone else's already working ideas.

When you apply for a patent you pretty much are swearing that you are the original inventor.
 
I wonder if Sony will try to patent [if then] soon lol

ps3 processor cell was some kind of wizard. That is why the ps4 couldnt emulate the ps3 games.
Pc can do the emulator with internet nerds, so I dont see why Sony cant hire experts to fix the issue.
They don't even need to hire experts considering that PS3 emulation was achieved without any documentation lol
 
Last edited:

The_Mike

I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
It would be too late for that.

You can't just patent someone else's already working ideas.

When you apply for a patent you pretty much are swearing that you are the original inventor.
I know.

But if Microsoft has to do some extra for their BC program, this might be an obstacle for their plans.
 

chonga

Member
Weird. I feel like we have seen something like this during the buildup to the PS5 where people heavily expected there to be PS1-PS4 BC.

I think the dream is dead
I distinctly remember that as well, I think this is a 'new' patent, but whose take away is nothing new.

In other words there are many ways to skin a cat - all uniquely patentable - but the end result is still a skinned cat.
 

Fake

Member
They don't even need to hire experts considering that PS3 emulation was achieved without any documentation lol

If they're looking for emulation, sure will be the cheap one. IDK if PS3 emulation is that worth. Transition between PS3 to PS4 was kinda smoothy in comparison with PS2 to PS3.
 
Last edited:

Sosokrates

Report me if I continue to console war
I think sony would be wise to have PS2 + PS3 BC on PS5, Its not that expensive to do and they will probably make money by selling more old games.
 

Ogbert

Member
How the fuck can you possibly get a patent on something like that? The idea of faking IDs to match older hardware is something so basic and long-used that if the patent system wasn't utterly fucked it would be instantly rejected.
From my limited exposure to IP and patent law, frequently, an application has nothing to do with actually wanting and/or expecting a successful claim - it’s to help down the line with commercial conversations about what you want to do with your platform.

This is likely just performance art.
 

KAL2006

Banned
Majority of PS3 games got PS4 Remasters anyways so I don't see that it's a big ommision. They just needed to remaster the last few games in terms of first party, such as Puppeteer, Ratchet Future Collection and etc. It's PS2, PS1 and PSP backwards compatibility that's more important and we all know Sony have working emulators for those systems but they can't be bothered.
 

ReBurn

Gold Member
From my limited exposure to IP and patent law, frequently, an application has nothing to do with actually wanting and/or expecting a successful claim - it’s to help down the line with commercial conversations about what you want to do with your platform.

This is likely just performance art.
Performance art based on what? It's common for companies to patent the technologies they design. There's no reason to believe there's an ulterior motive at work here.
 

reksveks

Member
Performance art based on what? It's common for companies to patent the technologies they design. There's no reason to believe there's an ulterior motive at work here.
Think he is saying that they probably aren't going to use the methodology to enable BC support.
 

yurinka

Member
I may be wrong, but I'd say this 2017 patent is for the PS4 BC included in PS5.

I think sony would be wise to have PS2 + PS3 BC on PS5, Its not that expensive to do and they will probably make money by selling more old games.
PS5 (and PS4) has PS2 Classics and PS1/PS2/PS3 games ported, remastered, remade or included in compilations. While other ones are perfectly playable, proper full PS3 emulation at good performance of many important games isn't possible for most games in PS5 or modern PCs due to tech limits so PS3 emulation won't happen, at least for many games.
 
Last edited:

Ogbert

Member
Performance art based on what? It's common for companies to patent the technologies they design. There's no reason to believe there's an ulterior motive at work here.

Apologies. Let me be clear. I know absolutely zero nothing this particular patent application, do not understand the technology described and am not suggesting there is an ulterior motive. I shouldn't have said this is 'performance art'.

I was just making a broader point. Applications are often red herrings. They are applied for, knowing they will be rejected, with a view to 'socialising' another idea, that is often included in the body of the application.
 
Top Bottom